Page 4484 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 19 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Attorneys-General agreed, and all States agreed, not to legislate themselves until the Commonwealth had completed that work. At this point, the Commonwealth is furthering the work on discrimination on the grounds of age and also the associated issue of superannuation. So, Mr Kaine is quite right there. I agree with him that it is a very difficult issue. It is one which does need to be addressed, and it is being addressed by the Commonwealth.
Mr Jensen raised the interesting question of whether this Bill would have an impact on the defence forces, and in particular on women's roles in combat duties. I would like to point out to Mr Jensen that the combination of section 28 of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act and section 109 of the Constitution actually prevents my Bill from binding the defence forces.
Mr Kaine: Our Bill.
MS FOLLETT: Our Bill. I take that back, Mr Deputy Speaker. So, the situation which Mr Jensen feared, of the ACT's Bill obliging the Commonwealth to employ women in combat roles, will not arise. It is constitutionally impossible for that to occur, regrettable though it may be, Mr Deputy Speaker.
It is difficult to know where to start with Mr Stevenson's comments. I thought that, for a start, Mr Stevenson has a very long way to go in understanding what equal opportunity, discrimination and sexual harassment are all about; but I can assure him that his opening remarks about the creation of thought offences reflect a quite unfounded fear on his part. It is still a fact that you can think what you like, and I have no doubt that Mr Stevenson will continue to do so.
But I would like to comment in general on his remark that the Bill makes provision throughout all of its areas for areas where there is a genuine occupational qualification or a genuine requirement for a person to have particular attributes. If you look through the Bill you can see that the case of Mr Stevenson's receptionist in the beauty parlour is quite adequately dealt with. I refer members to paragraph 34(2)(i), on page 18, where there is this provision:
(i) the duties of the position involve providing persons of the relevant sex with services for the purpose of promoting their welfare where those services can most effectively be provided by a person of that sex.
There are further provisions there which relate to people who may be in a state of undress, where it is quite appropriate to have a person of a particular sex, and so on. Mr Stevenson, I think, has made up a lovely story, has woven a lovely story; but it is, unfortunately, quite unfounded. I do accept that I do not have Mr Stevenson's
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .